Does artificial intelligence make you concerned for your job? Are humans at imminent risk of being replaced by robots, or even software-driven functions?
Kyle Miller says no and no.
Miller is head of a team of product developers at Zuken in Bristol, England, that is working on AI-based place-and-route technology. In addition to the 20-plus years spent in CAD tools, he has a doctorate in artificial intelligence, which means he’s a lot better at math than me or you.
Speaking at Zuken Innovation World in mid-April, Miller outlined the headway Zuken is making in machine-learning tools. The short answer: quite a bit. Machine learning-based programs are very good at pattern recognition and converting data into usable forms. Everyday uses include Google’s Android-based speech-to-text tools. ML is also apparently superior in finding and exploiting bugs in software, to the extent the developers of the space-flight simulation role-playing game known as Elite Dangerous had to eliminate the function after their game’s ML exploited a glitch to create an unstoppable weapon.
If your designer certification were suddenly rendered invalid, would you feel any less professional? Would you feel any less knowledgeable about your craft?
Those questions are at the root of an ongoing debate between IPC and the Designer’s Council Executive Board. The two parties have been at odds over the past several months due to a difference in opinion over the nature of the certification program.
Designer certification as a formality dates back to 1994. A group of industry professionals, along with the late Dieter Bergman, then IPC technical director, devised the original template. (Disclosure: I was the IPC staff liaison for design and was present at all the meetings where the program was drafted.) A consulting firm we’d hired advised us to use a consensus body of knowledge such as a standard as the foundation for the exam, as it would leave us less exposed to litigation from someone who might have failed the test. Thus, we wrote hundreds of questions for a test based on IPC-D-275, the prevailing design standard of the time, but steeped in good design practice. And we developed a multi-day workshop to prepare designers for it.
With every Apex comes an outpouring of new standards, and this year’s conference was no exception.
As the demands of PCBs for automotive applications assert themselves as a unique class, the industry standards are being adapted in sync. To that end, IPC-6012, the longstanding bare board qualification spec, now has an automotive supplement, reflecting the “superclass” of reliability for that sector above and beyond Class 2.
Given that auto electronics are shrinking, the IPC task group has eliminated visual inspection in favor of AOI on all layers and recommends use of AVI (automated visual inspection) of the finished PCB.
The cleanliness testing requirement has also been rewritten. The automotive addendum includes a recommendation of tests to be used in Production Part Approval Process (PPAP) documentation.
As the seasons changed, so did the economic winds.
Housing price increases had outpaced the demand curve, as unit sales slowed and new starts cooled. Automotive sales dived for the longest stretch in years. The stock market tanked. Interest rates ticked up. The bond yield curve inverted, suggesting investors had turned pessimistic about short-term prospects for the economy. Foreign investment stalled. The government, having primed the consumer economic pump through huge capital inflows to the domestic economy, struggled over hard choices of whether to borrow even more in the hopes of stemming a potential recession.
Faced with all of the above, coupled with rising labor costs, a cascade of confusing new government rules, and an increasingly treacherous trade environment, manufacturers started looking for friendlier climes.